Furferi v. Pa. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 15 July 1935 |
| Citation | 180 A. 405 |
| Parties | FURFERI v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. |
| Court | New Jersey Court of Common Pleas |
Appeal from Workmen's Compensation Bureau.
Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Dominick Furferi for the death of Pietro Furferi, employee, opposed by the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, employer. From a judgment of the Workmen's Compensation Bureau granting an award of compensation, employer appeals.
Affirmed.
Felcone & Felcone, of Trenton, for Furferi.
W. Holt Apgar, of Trenton, for the Pennsylvania R. Co.
This matter is on appeal from a judgment of the Workmen's Compensation Bureau. Carmella Furferi, petitioner, is the widow of Pietro Furferi, and the action was brought for compensation for his death alleged to have been caused by an accident which occurred on August 15, 1933, while the decedent was employed by the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. The matter presents two questions for decision, namely, (1) whether or not decedent was engaged in interstate commerce at the time of the alleged accident, and, if not, then (2) whether or not the alleged accident is compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Comp. St. Supplements 1924, 1930, and N. J. St. Annuals 1931 to 1933, § **236—1 et seq.).
Decedent was working for the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, respondent-appellant, hereinafter referred to as appellant, at the time of the alleged accident. Specifically he was unloading ties from a car standing on a track to the ground. These ties had been moved on the car from Morrisville, Pa., to the Barracks Yard of appellant in Trenton, N. J., and the car was kept for several days on a work track. Eventually, the yardmaster wanted the car released, and the car was released by having the ties unloaded. They were unloaded in a part of the yard which was used more or less for storage purposes, inasmuch as it was an open space and a handy spot to take material. While engaged in unloading these ties, the decedent became sick and had pains about the region of his stomach apparently, and had to go home before the end of the day's work. A short time thereafter he died from a strangulated hernia. Either the same day that the ties were being unloaded or the next day, the foreman ordered some of these ties to be placed under No. 5 track, which is a track over which trains engaged in interstate transportation pass, and some ties were so placed the next day.
The matter was first argued before this court in the absence of counsel for the appellant and the court affirmed the judgment of the Workmen's Compensation Bureau. Thereafter, upon motion of counsel for appellant, a rehearing was allowed by the court and was subsequently had and both counsel argued the matter orally and have presented briefs. Practically the entire argument on the rehearing in behalf of appellant was directed to the interstate commerce phase of the case, and two recent cases decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court, namely, Rossi v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 115 N. J. Law, 1, 178 A. 77, and Martin v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey 115 N. J. Law, 11, 178 A. 82, were stressed. Counsel stated frankly that no reliance was placed upon the fact that the ties originally came from Morrisville, Pa., outside of this state, to the state of New Jersey, but contended that the ties were being unloaded so as to be available for use in repairing track No. 5, and that, therefore, decedent was engaged in interstate commerce. The test of employment in interstate commerce, within the intendment of the federal statute (45 USCA §§ 51-59) is this: Was the employee at the time of the injury engaged in interstate transportation or in work so closely related to it as to be practically a part of it? Careful consideration has been given to the cases above mentioned decided by the Supreme Court of New Jersey and also the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Pedersen v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 229 U. S. 146, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gray v. Kurn
...175 P. 326; Arizona, Eastern Railroad Co. v. Head, 26 Ariz. 137, 222 P. 1041; Hudson & M. Railroad Co. v. Irio, 239 F. 855; Furferi v. Penn. Ry. Co., 180 A. 405. The of whether an employee was engaged in intrastate or interstate transportation depends upon the work he was performing at the ......
-
Delong v. Me. Cent. R. Co.
...S. L. R. Co. v. Industrial Accident Com'n, 1935, 2 Cal.2d 685, 43 P.2d 282, constructing detour in power line; Furferi v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 1935, 180 A. 405, 13 N.J.Misc. 574, unloading ties for storage; and Clevinger v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 1937, 341 Mo. 797, 109 S.W.2d 369,......
-
Furferi v. Pa. R. Co., 58.
...Furferi. From a judgment of the Supreme Court (116 N.J.Law, 70, 181 A. 898), reversing a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas (180 A. 405, 13 N.J.Misc. 574), which affirmed the award of compensation by the Workmen's Compensation Bureau, Carmela Furferi Judgment of the Supreme Court reverse......
-
Furferi v. Pa. R. Co.
...of the Workmen's Compensation Bureau, in favor of Carmela Furferi, substituted in place and stead of Dominick Furferi (180 A. 405, 13 N.J.Misc. 574), employer brings Reversed and record remitted. Argued October term, 1935, before CASE and BODINE, JJ. Felcone & Felcone and Michael Felcone, a......